17 California opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Pietakgreen2 sentences2015(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 [presumption of correctness]; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [inadequate record]; McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512 , 522–523 [argument must be supported by argument and citation to authority].) Apart from taking issue with the photographic array, evidence the trial court appropriately excluded, Duran does not explain why other evidence––which overwhelmingly supports his convictions––was deficient. 2014(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 [presumption of correctness]; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [inadequate record]; McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523 [argument must be supported by argument and citation to authority].) Defendant does not say why the prior conviction cannot be proven or in what way the evidence supporting the prior conviction is deficient. | 2 | 2 |
Aguilar v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.green2 sentences2015(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 [presumption of correctness]; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [inadequate record]; McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512 , 522–523 [argument must be supported by argument and citation to authority].) Apart from taking issue with the photographic array, evidence the trial court appropriately excluded, Duran does not explain why other evidence––which overwhelmingly supports his convictions––was deficient. 2014(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 [presumption of correctness]; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [inadequate record]; McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523 [argument must be supported by argument and citation to authority].) Defendant does not say why the prior conviction cannot be proven or in what way the evidence supporting the prior conviction is deficient. | 2 | 2 |
Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agencygreen2 sentences2010(See Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 511, 541 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 ] [explaining the term "urban"], superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 598, 607 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 ].) [11] Having concluded the project does not satisfy the criteria for the in-fill development exemption (Guidelines, § 15332), we do not consider the Tomlinsons' remaining assertions of error. 2010(See Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 511, 541 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 ] [explaining the term "urban"], superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 598, 607 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 ].) [11] Having concluded the project does not satisfy the criteria for the in-fill development exemption (Guidelines, § 15332), we do not consider the Tomlinsons' remaining assertions of error. | 2 | 2 |
Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agencygreen2 sentences2010(See Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 511, 541 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 ] [explaining the term "urban"], superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 598, 607 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 ].) [11] Having concluded the project does not satisfy the criteria for the in-fill development exemption (Guidelines, § 15332), we do not consider the Tomlinsons' remaining assertions of error. 2010(See Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 511, 541 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 ] [explaining the term "urban"], superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 598, 607 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 249 ].) [11] Having concluded the project does not satisfy the criteria for the in-fill development exemption (Guidelines, § 15332), we do not consider the Tomlinsons' remaining assertions of error. | 2 | 2 |
Shawn Garfield Price v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 994-995 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475 , 839 P.2d 984 ], overruled on another point in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1075 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 , 25 P.3d 618 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling Evidence Code section 356 did not require admission of Isaac’s entire statement to Detective Kirtlan. *75 VIII Cumulative Prejudice Finally, we reject Isaac’s assertion the cumulative effect of the foregoing assertions of error require reversal. 2016(See People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 994-995 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475 , 839 P.2d 984 ], overruled on another point in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1075 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 , 25 P.3d 618 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling Evidence Code section 356 did not require admission of Isaac’s entire statement to Detective Kirtlan. *75 VIII Cumulative Prejudice Finally, we reject Isaac’s assertion the cumulative effect of the foregoing assertions of error require reversal. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hillgreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 994-995 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475 , 839 P.2d 984 ], overruled on another point in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1075 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 , 25 P.3d 618 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling Evidence Code section 356 did not require admission of Isaac’s entire statement to Detective Kirtlan. *75 VIII Cumulative Prejudice Finally, we reject Isaac’s assertion the cumulative effect of the foregoing assertions of error require reversal. 2016(See People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 994-995 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475 , 839 P.2d 984 ], overruled on another point in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1075 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 409 , 25 P.3d 618 ].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling Evidence Code section 356 did not require admission of Isaac’s entire statement to Detective Kirtlan. *75 VIII Cumulative Prejudice Finally, we reject Isaac’s assertion the cumulative effect of the foregoing assertions of error require reversal. | 1 | 2 |
McComber v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2015(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 [presumption of correctness]; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [inadequate record]; McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512 , 522–523 [argument must be supported by argument and citation to authority].) Apart from taking issue with the photographic array, evidence the trial court appropriately excluded, Duran does not explain why other evidence––which overwhelmingly supports his convictions––was deficient. 2014(See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 [presumption of correctness]; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [inadequate record]; McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523 [argument must be supported by argument and citation to authority].) Defendant does not say why the prior conviction cannot be proven or in what way the evidence supporting the prior conviction is deficient. | 1 | 2 |
Bruton v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1970The Right of Confrontation (8a) Defendant correctly asserts that the introduction of Scott's extrajudicial statements implicating defendant were violative of his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. (9) In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 127-128 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 476, 480-481 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ], it was held that it is a denial of the right of cross-examination, guaranteed to a defendant in a criminal case by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, to admit at a joint trial an extrajudicial confession of a codefendant which implicates the defendant, despite instruct 1970The Right of Confrontation (8a) Defendant correctly asserts that the introduction of Scott's extrajudicial statements implicating defendant were violative of his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. (9) In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 127-128 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 476, 480-481 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ], it was held that it is a denial of the right of cross-examination, guaranteed to a defendant in a criminal case by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, to admit at a joint trial an extrajudicial confession of a codefendant which implicates the defendant, despite instruct | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Prunty
green
2 sentences2016Finally, Isaac contends: (8) the trial court prejudicially erred and violated his constitutional rights by allowing one of the detectives in the case to convey a misleading portion of Isaac’s statement to police; and (9) the cumulative effect of the foregoing assertions of error requires reversal. 3 Following oral argument, our Supreme Court decided People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59 (Prunty), which squarely addresses the first contention listed above. 2016Finally, Isaac contends: (8) the trial court prejudicially erred and violated his constitutional rights by allowing one of the detectives in the case to convey a misleading portion of Isaac’s statement to police; and (9) the cumulative effect of the foregoing assertions of error requires reversal. 3 Following oral argument, our Supreme Court decided People v. Prunty (2015) 62 Cal.4th 59 (Prunty), which squarely addresses the first contention listed above. | 6 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Dykes
green
1 sentence2026Analysis When reviewing the trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial based on juror misconduct, we accept a trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations, including as to whether misconduct occurred, “if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 809 ; People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147 , 194–195 [finding that substantial evidence supported trial court’s finding that no misconduct occurred].) The trial court properly denied the motion for a new trial because Kessee failed to present credible evidence of any juror misconduct. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Tafoya
green
1 sentence2026Analysis When reviewing the trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial based on juror misconduct, we accept a trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations, including as to whether misconduct occurred, “if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 809 ; People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147 , 194–195 [finding that substantial evidence supported trial court’s finding that no misconduct occurred].) The trial court properly denied the motion for a new trial because Kessee failed to present credible evidence of any juror misconduct. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Hill
green
1 sentence2023(Pierce, at p. 574.) 14 IV Cumulative Prejudice Defendant also claims the cumulative prejudicial effect of the foregoing assertions of error requires reversal. “[A] series of trial errors, though independently harmless, may in some circumstances rise by accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial error.” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844 .) As we have explained, except for defendant’s first assertion of error, requiring reversal of count two, each of the remaining assertions of trial error is either waived or forfeited, and the latter two are also harmless. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2023A prosecutor may not “refer[] in argument to matter outside the record.” (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 948 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 459 .) In rebuttal argument, the prosecutor responded to many of the assertions defense counsel made during his own closing argument. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Pinholster
green
1 sentence2023A prosecutor may not “refer[] in argument to matter outside the record.” (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 948 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 459 .) In rebuttal argument, the prosecutor responded to many of the assertions defense counsel made during his own closing argument. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Dueñas
green
1 sentence2020Defendant relies on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 , which holds “that due process of law requires the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing and ascertain a defendant’s present ability to pay before it imposes court facilities and court operations assessments under … section 1465.8 and Government Code section 70373.” (Id. at p. 1164.) The Dueñas opinion further holds that “although Penal Code section 1202.4 bars consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay unless the judge is considering 11. increasing the fee over the statutory minimum, the execution of any restitutio | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2013Scott, M.D., was not allowed to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of S.; (3) the trial court violated defendant’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ] (Miranda) by (a) allowing testimony that defendant had been given an opportunity to make a statement to police and had done so, and (b) requiring the jury to be informed, during closing argument, of the content of this statement; (4) the trial court prejudicially erred by allowing the jurors to retain, during the remainder of the trial, their copies of the transcript of a pretext phone call between S. and defenda 2013Scott, M.D., was not allowed to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of S.; (3) the trial court violated defendant’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ] (Miranda) by (a) allowing testimony that defendant had been given an opportunity to make a statement to police and had done so, and (b) requiring the jury to be informed, during closing argument, of the content of this statement; (4) the trial court prejudicially erred by allowing the jurors to retain, during the remainder of the trial, their copies of the transcript of a pretext phone call between S. and defenda | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Miles
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Miles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1074, 1083 ; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 258 .) Finally, Donkor’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel appears to be based on the assertions of error described above. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Prieto
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Miles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1074, 1083 ; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 258 .) Finally, Donkor’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel appears to be based on the assertions of error described above. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.